My thesis is looking at the diversity within a small-bodied freshwater fish species, the Blackside Snubnose Darter (Etheostoma duryi).
Figure 1. Etheostoma duryi male in breeding condition
While this species is conservative with meristic variation, we can investigate a suite of traits to assess some diversity.
Figure 2. Guide for collecting meristic data on fishes
Below are some analyses that can be done just with the data collected thus far.
We have data for 656 Etheostoma duryi specimens that were housed in museums.
| Locality | n | minimum | maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| 81 | 43 | 55 | |
| Duck | 158 | 40 | 55 |
| Elk | 164 | NA | NA |
| Elk | 10 | 41 | 46 |
| Emory | 2 | 48 | 52 |
| Flint | 17 | 43 | 52 |
| Lower TN | 113 | 38 | 60 |
| Middle TN | 38 | 40 | 53 |
| Paint Rock | 14 | 40 | 51 |
| Sequatchie | 41 | 42 | 50 |
| Shoal | 18 | 40 | 56 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 35 | 36 | 10 | 0 | |
| Duck | 0 | 7 | 46 | 79 | 25 | 1 |
| Elk | 0 | 10 | 63 | 56 | 26 | 9 |
| Elk | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Emory | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Flint | 1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Lower TN | 0 | 14 | 50 | 45 | 4 | 0 |
| Middle TN | 0 | 2 | 20 | 13 | 2 | 1 |
| Paint Rock | 0 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Sequatchie | 0 | 6 | 25 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| Shoal | 0 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 15 | 60 | 4 | 0 | |
| Duck | 1 | 37 | 91 | 27 | 2 |
| Elk | 4 | 43 | 99 | 18 | 0 |
| Elk | 0 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| Emory | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Flint | 0 | 3 | 10 | 4 | 0 |
| Lower TN | 1 | 22 | 58 | 31 | 1 |
| Middle TN | 1 | 16 | 15 | 5 | 1 |
| Paint Rock | 0 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 0 |
| Sequatchie | 0 | 7 | 32 | 2 | 0 |
| Shoal | 0 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 0 |
| 38 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 60 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Duck | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 12 | 25 | 18 | 18 | 20 | 12 | 16 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Elk | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 20 | 14 | 23 | 20 | 21 | 17 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Elk | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Emory | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Flint | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lower TN | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 17 | 18 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Middle TN | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Paint Rock | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sequatchie | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shoal | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
ggplot(counts, aes(x = Locality, y = Lateral.Line))+
geom_boxplot()
ggsave('LocalityvsLateralLine.png')
## Saving 7 x 5 in image
ggplot(counts, aes(x = SL..mm., y = Lateral.Line, colour = Locality))+ geom_point()
ggsave('LocalityvsSLvsLL.png')
## Saving 7 x 5 in image
Looking at somewhat random models
plot(Lateral.Line ~ SL..mm., data = counts)
sizeLLmodel <- lm(Lateral.Line ~ SL..mm., data = counts)
abline(sizeLLmodel)
anova(sizeLLmodel)
## Analysis of Variance Table
##
## Response: Lateral.Line
## Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
## SL..mm. 1 177.5 177.514 19.944 9.4e-06 ***
## Residuals 652 5803.3 8.901
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
plot(Caudal.Peduncle ~ SL..mm., data = counts)
sizeCPmodel <- lm(Caudal.Peduncle ~ SL..mm., data = counts)
anova(sizeCPmodel)
## Analysis of Variance Table
##
## Response: Caudal.Peduncle
## Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
## SL..mm. 1 20.29 20.2850 14.446 0.0001577 ***
## Residuals 652 915.53 1.4042
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1